Thursday, September 29, 2011

Things aren’t going well for Obama’s economic policies, and people are starting to notice. In fact, things have gone so badly that a backlash has formed and a wholesale rejection of his policies is underway. But even more than that, there seems to be a serious attitude shift in the public.

How Bad Is The Obamaconomy?

After three years bankrupting the country with futile “stimulus” spending and give-aways to Obama’s supporters, our economy stinks. In fact, it’s the worst economy since the Great Depression. How bad is it? Theoretically, the recession ended in 2009 and the Obama recovery began at that point. Indeed, Team Obama twice now has heralded “the recovery summer.” And yet:

● Official unemployment remains at 9.1% in August.

● Unofficial unemployment remains around 17%.

● Official black unemployment remains at 16.7%.

● Median household income is down to $49,445, below 1996 levels. In other words, fifteen years of income growth are gone.

● Inflation is officially 3.2%, but it’s really closer to 12-15%.

● There are 46.2 million people living below the poverty line ($22,314 per family). This is a record since the statistic was first kept in 1959. The poverty rate of 15.1% is also a record.

● 13.7 million Americans receive unemployment.

● 16.3% of people still have no health insurance.

● Health insurance premiums are up 9% this year, following 2010’s rise of 14%. Thanks Barack!

About Face!

In 2008, when Obama came to power, the conventional wisdom assumed the public was ready to move left and accept more government control over their lives. But that didn't last. People now see the government as the problem. Indeed, not only has the public rejected Obama's agenda, but they've moved further right than ever. Consider these numbers from Gallup (which typically shades about 5% to the left):

● 57% of Americans say the federal government has too much power and only 8% think it needs more.

● 56% of Americans say the federal government “is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and business.” Only 39% believe the government should do more.

● 56% want lower taxes and fewer services and only 16% want more taxes and more services.

● 50% think the government regulates too much. 23% think it regulates about right and 23% want more regulation.

That means 60% of the public is ready to declare an end to the Pelosi/Obama Age of Big Government (Redux). But even beyond these numbers, something else has changed.

When Reagan came to power, there was a sense the government had gone too far. But there seemed little appetite for wholesale butchering of government functions and agencies. It was still a world of “the government should be smaller, but don’t cut any of it.” The left used this dualism for years to justify continued spending, by claiming that people don’t really want cuts because they can’t identify anything they are willing to give up. That’s changed. Suddenly, people want it all cut. Questions like “what agency would you wipe out,” are now common topics for discussion and were even asked by an MSM journalist at the last debate -- in the past, this would have been considered fringe stuff.

Also, Republican governors are slashing budgets, cutting taxes, demanding an end to regulation, and ending collective bargaining right, and House Republicans are in near revolt to make similar changes. . . yet this isn't hurting them with the public. In fact, many of their poll numbers are up (some Democratic pollster recently noted to their chagrin that the Democrats are doing even worse now than they did in 2010). Moreover, we just aren't seeing a popular backlash like we've seen in the past when sacred cows were touched. Where are the million old people who flooded the Capitol switchboard when Republicans first proposed changes to Social Security in the 1990s? They're silent. Instead, all we've seen is professional protestors, whose buffoonish efforts achieved nothing. Heck, this trend is so obvious that even Democrats are starting to adopt similar rhetoric, without the substance of course.

Obama wanted to be an historic President, and he has been in many ways: his deficits are historic, he lost our credit rating, he’s the least popular President ever, and he’s headed for an historic beat down landslide in 2012. But his most historic achievement may ultimately be that he brought to life a change in belief in the United States away from slowly expanding the welfare state to ending it. . . i.e. he may complete Reagan's legacy!

The only question now is will the public turn out in large enough numbers to overcome those with a vested interest in big government? Someone said the other day that this election will be between those who work for a living and those who vote for a living. Workers of the world unite! ;-)

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Did you know Obama’s very words are racist? Actually, let me rephrase that: repeating Obama’s words without cleaning up his mistakes is racist. . . even when the mistakes are intentional. So says the race-baiting industry.

Last Saturday, Obama gave a speech at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's “Cry Racism” Dinner. During this speech, Obama used some negro dialect (to quote Harry Reid), which apparently involves dropping many of the g’s from his words. Hence, he said things like:

You tell ‘em Barack! He may even have said, “lon’ duk don’” but that’s unconfirmed. Anyway, the AP repeated this in a transcript without cleaning up Obama’s diction as they do for such other luminaries like every NFL player.

Enter the idiots. . . Afro-American author Karen Hunter whines that it was “inherently racist” not to clean up the president’s speech. Oh tell me more!

“I teach a journalism class, and I tell my students to fix people’s grammar, because you don’t want them to sound ignorant. For them to do that, it’s code, and I don’t like it.”

Code huh? So now it’s racist code to quote black people accurately? Interesting. Isn't this the same crowd that claims Ebonics is a language that should be respected? But now it’s racist code when whitey doesn’t whiten up a black person’s quotes? Does anyone see a problem here? And does anyone wanna bet that if they did clean up Obama’s speech, some other race-baiter would have screamed “racism” because clearly the reporter was “trying to wipe out Obama’s blackness”? They might even have called it “genocide,” like they do when white people adopt black kids.

The AP is now offering sniveling assurances that it always cleans up people's quotes and thus presumably should have cleaned up Obama's. . . although when the Bush White House tried to clean up his quotes, the AP refused to go along. Hmm. I guess the AP was racist against the Bush family.

Is it just me or is this getting really stupid? We’ve reached a point where this whole racism issue has become a mental problem. They are seeing racists lurking behind every corner, under every rock, in every cup of Tea, and hidden in every word. The word “black hole” was recently called racist. The words “picnic” and "tar baby" are supposedly racist. Now quoting Obama using a form of speech that tends to be associated with class, not race, is racist. This needs to stop.

But there are no signs this is even slowing down. Obama’s speech actually brought howls of racism. . . only without the word itself. Maxine Waters whined that Obama’s speech “surprised” her and was “not appropriate”:

“. . .the president spoke to the Hispanic Caucus. . . and he certainly didn’t tell them to stop complaining. And he never would say that to the gay and lesbian community. . . or even in a speech to AIPAC, he would never say that to the Jewish community ‘stop complaining’ about Israel.”

In other words, she thinks he's treating blacks in a discriminatory manner, and you can bet she would be screaming racism if he were white -- just as Emanuel Cleaver admitted that they "probably would be marching on the White House" if anybody but Obama was President.

And for good measure, several others are now debating what Obama meant when he said, “take off your bedroom slippers [and] put on your marching shoes.” Apparently, there may be some racism in that too, depending on whether “bedroom slippers” is somehow code for something inherently black. No, I'm not joking.

Idiots.

Bill Shakespeare wrote, “The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.” Maybe that’s something blacks should think about... “the racism, dear friends, lies not in all around you, but in yourselves.”

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

There was an interesting article yesterday by Howard Kurtz about an interview given by Roger Ailes, the Grand Pooh-Bah of Fox News. It’s interesting on several levels. First, Fox is apparently moving left in its coverage. Secondly, it really highlights why conservatives should not trust Fox.

One of the most striking things Ailes said was that Fox is undergoing a “course correction” toward the left. Apparently, Fox executives think the entire network took a hard right turn after Obama’s election and “as the Tea Party’s popularity fades” they are shifting back to the center. Oh, where to begin.

First, there was no hard right turn. The types of stories Fox covers and the slant they put on them was no different in 2009 than it was in 2006 or 2002. Sure, they hired Glenn Beck, but he didn't dictate what the network would cover. He simply provided one opinion show. By that token, MSNBC is right wing because they hired Joe Scarborough.

Secondly, the presumption that the Tea Party is fading sits exactly at the core of why conservatives should be leery of Fox. Fox only cares about drama. . . not truth, not politics. To achieve that, it tries to shoehorn every issue into an easy storyline with clear winners and losers, so it can hire attractive women to represent each side and slap it out on television. The only thing missing is the Jello.

The Tea Party is an idea, not an organization. It is twenty million Americans all doing their own thing with the same goal in mind: change our government. It has no leaders, it does not engage in political theater. In many ways, it is akin to communist cells. And that cannot be squeezed into Fox’s format. But Fox tried. Rather than reporting what was really going on and helping people understand the Tea Party, it instead appointed fake leaders, like Michelle Bachmann, Dick Armey, and Glenn Beck to make its storylines work. Not surprisingly, those people failed to catch on. So now Fox is declaring the Tea Party finished because Fox's storylines didn't work and are played out. . . without ever considering that it has completely misrepresented what the Tea Party is.

This is why you should not trust Fox, because it does not care about presenting conservatives fairly, it cares about using conservatives to sell its drama, and it will twist conservatives to fit its needs.

Third, if Fox is to be a legitimate news source (as it pretends) then it should not be setting any sort of course. It should take the news as it comes without comment and bias. Indeed, Ailes himself complains about the bias of the other networks and the AP: “the AP is so far over the hill, they’ve become left wing, antiwar. Gotta watch their copy.” That’s certainly true. But let me ask, why then does FOX do nothing more than repeat AP stories? Why doesn't it gather its own news? And if bias is bad, why does Ailes admit in the article that he's advised so many of these candidates, including Romney, Perry and others?

Moreover, listen to what happened prior to the debate. Hours before the last debate, Ailes’s team sat in the auditorium plotting how to trap the candidates. And yes, “trap” is the right word. Listen to what Chris Wallace planned to do to trap Perry to generate “fireworks”:

“[I'll ask] 'How do you feel about being criticized by some of your rivals as being too soft on illegal immigration?' Then I go to Rick Santorum: 'is Perry too soft?'”

This is inappropriate. There is nothing wrong with planning an interview question. In fact, a well-prepared journalist needs to think of things they will ask in advance. BUT, this goes beyond preparing a question. This adds the element of using Rick Santorum to sneak attack Perry. This is akin Jerry Springer bringing out a surprise guest. This is trying to make the news, not report it.

Rush rightly criticized this: “Fox wants these people to tear each other up.” And what did Ailes say in response? “Because [people] see conservative thinking on our channel and don’t see it on any other channel, they think we’re in someone’s pocket.” Well, no. Because you call yourself “news,” we figure you would act like journalists, not game show hosts. Apparently, we were mistaken.

Frankly, none of this is new.

Fox has been a fraud since its inception. The way Fox works is simple. They buy stories off the wire from the Associated Press and ask their anchors to spin those stories to the right. That's all they do. To add excitement, they hire telegenic guests to slug it out. That’s not journalism. . . it’s a game show.

And it's not conservative either. Fox's conservatism is the conservatism of big, crony corporate socialists. It is the voice of K Street. And now it wants to turn our primary into reality television. Enough!

**************

As an aside, according to a Zogby poll, Herman Cain is now the leader at 28% with Republican voters.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Christ Christie is reconsidering whether or not to run for the Presidency. Ok. I don’t think the Democrats will give him the nod over Obama, but he’s entitled to try. Wait, he’s thinking about running as a Republican? And there are conservatives pushing him? Grrr.

Rick Perry is flaming out. After Perry’s horrible debate performance, Herman Cain cleaned his clock in the Florida straw poll (37% Cain, 15% Perry) and Romney took him out in Michigan (51% Romney, 17% Perry). This has created an opening if someone else with strong name recognition wants to jump in. And to some people that means Christie.

Apparently, several big money types, including Rupert Murdoch and the billionaire Koch brothers have spoken to Christie about running. A group of 50 business leaders including Ken Langone, Jack Welch, Charles Schwab and Mort Zuckerman appealed to him in person. Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal has been pimping him as well. So has The Weekly Standard and Bill Kristol. Even Ann Coulter, normally a thoughtful conservative, is a fan of Chris Christie and encouraged him to run as recently as this summer.

Mitch Daniels, who is generally conservative, has been agitating for someone new to jump into the race as well, and he just had a private meeting with Christie. Said Daniels of Christie, “he’s different, right?” Yes he is, but not in a good way.

Listen conservative suckers, this has to stop. Christie is barely even a RINO, much less a conservative. They think he’s a pro-life conservative who appeals to conservatives, moderates and liberals because he has Tea Party ideas, but isn’t ideological and won’t “demagogue” on issues like abortion or immigration. But that's not true. Consider these FACTS (read: not delusions) about Christie:

● Christie has been a tax raiser. His first budget included $250 million in new taxes and eliminated $1.3 billion in property tax refunds.

● Christie has been a big spender. Christie claims he cut spending by 9% ($2.56 billion), but spending actually increased by 6%. And even that relies on gimmicks like delaying $3 billion in payments a couple weeks into the next budget and forcing $1.2 billion in spending down to the local level through unfunded mandates.

● Christie took $1 billion in stimulus money, after promising he wouldn’t. And he borrowed $750 million to build schools in Democratic districts, after promising he would never borrow money.

● Christie took on the unions right? Wrong. There don’t appear to have been any job cuts and salaries went up 7% per year.

● He believes in global warming. In the past, he claimed he wasn’t sure, but now he claims he’s always been sure:

“In the past I’ve always said that climate change is real and it’s impacting our state. (lie) There’s undeniable data that CO2 levels and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing. (wrong) This decade, average temperatures have been rising. (wrong) Temperature changes are affecting weather patterns and our climate. (wrong) . . . When you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts. (false logic)”

● Christie favors unspecified gun control because he “wants to make sure that we don’t have an abundance of guns out there.”

● Christie favors amnesty for illegal aliens:

“Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime. The whole phrase of ‘illegal immigrant’ connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime. . . It is not.”

* * *

“What I support is making sure that the federal government plays each and every one of its roles: Securing the border, enforcing immigration laws, and having an orderly process — whatever that process is — for people to gain citizenship. It’s a very easy issue to demagogue and I’m just not going to participate in that.”

● He appointed liberals to all of his key positions. He appointed liberal Democrat Paula Dow as Attorney General of New Jersey. He appointed a global warming enthusiast as Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection. He appointed an ObamaCare supporter as Commissioner of the Department of Health and Senior Services.

● He tried to appoint a Kinseyan (sexual perversion advocacy, masquerading as science) as Director of the Department of Children and Families.

● He fired the only conservative in his cabinet (Brett Schundler, his Commissioner of Education) for failing to grab Stimulus money which Christie had previously promised he would not accept.

So how is he different than Obama?

Let me say this to the conservative glitterati: do your damn research! Stop falling for soundbites and false images. Politicians have records and you need to examine them. If you don’t, then you end up choosing the wrong people, people who will destroy and discredit conservatism. . . people like your latest crush, Chris Christie.

Friday, September 23, 2011

Last night saw yet another Republican debate. Who won? Who lost? Who should quit now? And a couple surprise thoughts! All this and more will be yours in this very special episode of Last Night At The Debate.

● Winner: Romney came across as confident and conservative. He ran to the right of Perry on immigration and states rights. He had a solid control of the facts and some seriously pithy moments. For example, he latched onto one of Perry’s backtracks and said: “there’s a Rick Perry out there saying [the opposite of what you just said,] you better find that Rick Perry and get him to stop saying that.” Everyone laughed and Perry had no idea how to respond. Romney won a lot of people last night.

● Winner: The Hermanator was brilliant. He’s got a strong set of ideas and a compelling personality. His 9/9/9 plan is so well designed from a marketing perspective that it’s the only plan anyone remembers. His discussion of his cancer truly personalized why ObamaCare needs to go. His attack on the EPA “regulating dust” was one of the best received moments all night. And he offered a strong, clear and moral foreign policy. He not only had a command of the issues, he had a commanding presence. Cain should leapfrog Bachmann and maybe Perry if Perry falls as far as seems likely.

● Toast: Put a fork in Rick Perry, he’s done. Seriously. . . he’s the Hindenburg of candidates. Perry came across like he was drugged. He looked intimidated and sleepy. He sounded pissy. He never answered a single question, choosing instead to make whining attacks on Romney. All that was missing was Nixonian sweat to make the total implosion complete. I honestly expect this debate finished him. Consider these self-inflicted wounds:

● He stands by giving illegal aliens instate college rates. Perry tried to argue these people would be an economic burden unless they got education. Then Santorum slapped him down by pointing out that Perry was subsidizing illegals at rates people in the other 56 states can’t get. Zap.

● Perry had a couple good attacks on Romney but they fell flat because he kept tripping over his words. All night, he sounded a lot like Bush when Bush got into trouble in debates.

● Perry’s attempt to dodge his horrid answer on Social Security was a disaster. Now he claims he was only talking about creating state programs for government workers rather than privatizing the whole system. . . which Romney pointed out isn’t what Perry said in his book.

● Loser: Fox News. The acoustics were horrible, like the debate was held in a cave. Everything echoed and was hard to hear. Their format was horrible and created a dull, disjointed debate: (1) they asked individual questions of candidates, which prevented any sort of back and forth, and (2) they took so long getting to each you all but forgot about people. And they wasted time on stupid and confusing Google promotions. CNN made Fox look like amateurs.

● Toast: Michele Bachmann all but vanished last night, and she had problems. In particular, they re-opened the vaccine wound by questioning her story about the Gardasil vaccine causing retardation in a 12 year old. She tried to distance herself from that by claiming she was just repeating what she had been told -- not a good answer. She was also asked why she avoided answering a question at the last debate about how much of a person’s income they should be allowed to keep. She responded first by saying she wanted to answer and her answer would have been “all of it” (implying a 0% tax rate). Then she immediately said that “of course” some of it is needed to run the government. . . and then she dodged the question a second time.

● Winner/Loser: Gary Johnson had a couple good moments, including the best line of the night: “my neighbor’s dog has produced more shovel-ready jobs than this administration.” BUT he came across as highly uncomfortable and he said he would cut the military budget by 43%, which probably kills him. He’s like a less refined, less smooth version of Ron Paul.

● Winner: Ron Paul not only gave some brilliant answers (and some paranoid ones), but he easily fended off the possibility that Johnson would replace him with the Paul crowd. The USS Ron Paul sails on.

● Winner: Newt continues to impress. His answers are smart and workable. He reminded people that he balanced the budget and millions of jobs were created when he was Speaker. He’s pushing states’ rights strongly and he focuses on Obama.

● Winner: Joe Sixpack. Once again, the questions from the audience were great (except for one whiner from Michigan). I love Americans.

● Loser: Santorum collapsed on the don’t ask don’t tell repeal. Not only did he seem scared to even talk about gays, but he ended up suggesting the policy had to be put back in place to protect the military. . . except he would allow those currently in the military to stay. Huh? Basically, he lost both sides.

● Winner: Bev. Bev nominated herself for Vice President and that seems to have gone over well with Commentarama fans.

● Interesting Thought: At one point, Romney seemed to flirt with Cain. . . no, not in that way. This raises the suggestion of a Romney/Cain ticket. That might be enough to win over conservatives to Romney. Let’s see if there are any signs of a follow up.

Thoughts? Predictions?

P.S. Thanks to T-Rav and everyone else who participated last night. You all made a rather dull debate much more entertaining.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

There’s another Republican debate tonight. If we ask nicely, perhaps T-Rav, Emperor of Sockpuppets, will do a play by play? If not, we’ll mock him mercilessly. Anyhoo, this debate will be in Florida, and given the outcry surrounding Rick Perry’s description of Social Security as a “Ponzi Scheme,” expect that to be a big issue. Also, welcome a new player! Here's what you need to know.

First, the race has turned into a two man race: Perry and Romney. The others are still technically in it, but the polls are beginning to coalesce around these two: Perry holds a 28% to 24% lead over Romney, with no one else in double digits. That’s not surprising, as that happens once front-runners emerge. What is surprising is that Romney is catching up. Perry's 11% lead is down to 4%.

More surprising, Tea Party people in South Carolina apparently are shifting away from Perry toward Romney. I think there are two primary reasons for this. First, Romney has done an effective job of defusing the RomneyCare issue. Whether his defense is true or not, he presented what sounds like a very credible distinction between RomneyCare and ObamaCare. That makes him less toxic, especially as he promises to repeal ObamaCare.

Secondly, Perry is suffering from an unending assault over cronyism -- and has yet to do a good job explaining this away. Cronyism is an issue that sticks in the craws of most Tea Party people. And with Warren Buffett, Solyndra and LightSquared dominating the right-wing blogosphere, cronyism remains a hot button issue. This hurts Perry, especially as no one has made a cronyism charge against Romney.

Does this mean Perry is finished? Hardly. It means Romney will be a stronger competitor than expected and rather than watching Perry run away with the nomination, either one can win this thing. Romney needs to pound away at the crony issue if he wants to win. Perry needs to disarm that issue and find a way to point out that Romney isn't really proposing conservatism.

The other candidates are probably done at this point unless Romney or Perry slips up and falls out. Alternatively, they need to find a way to shock everyone to such a degree they become “buzz-worthy.” Newt is planning to give the intellectual speech to end all speeches. . . but we’ll see. It’s hard to get traction when people assume you can’t win.

One guy who actually has an outside chance tonight is Gary Johnson. He’s the libertarian-leaning former governor of New Mexico. He will be allowed to participate because he cleared the 1% hurdle in the polls (McCotter didn’t). If he comes across as a sane version of Ron Paul or simply as a genuine conservative, he could literally surge into the race as voters still don’t seem happy with Perry or Romney.

The other issue that is hurting Perry is his description of Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme. It is a Ponzi Scheme, but you can’t say that. Even Mitch Daniels, who is known for being truthful and breaking bad news to the public, described this as “too truthful.” A Ponzi Scheme (named after Charles Ponzi) is a fraud that takes the form of an investment that promises each investor more money than they put in, but which doesn’t earn enough money to pay what it promises. So long as enough new people get suckered in, the fraudster is able to pay what he promised to those already in the investment. But once the flow of new people slows, the whole thing collapses.

That’s exactly how Social Security works -- it pays people more than they paid in and it makes no money on its own. That was fine for decades, but when the baby boomers didn’t have enough kids, they triggered its collapse. Now we face a series of bad choices: cut the promised benefits, raise taxes, add more taxpaying workers (i.e. immigration), or let the system collapse. Unfortunately, voters are unwilling to accept any pain in finding a solution to this pending disaster. That hurts anyone who raises this issue, i.e. Perry.

But the real problem for Perry came when he proposed handing Social Security off to the states. Not only does this set off alarm bells for people who think they are going to get their benefits cut, but it sounds like an accounting gimmick that will crush state budgets. Romney is already pounding away at Perry on it. Indeed, Romney has asked Perry six questions, including how a state-run program would be administered or funded and how people could move from state to state under his plan. Look for this to come up a lot tonight (as the average age in Florida is 107).

Finally, I suspect you'll hear a lot about Israel as well, with Obama making such a mess of it, with Rick Perry using that issue to discuss foreign policy, and with Florida being heavily Jewish. Also, expect Perry to play to Hispanics tonight, who dominate parts of Florida. Perry did a fundraiser with Hispanic businessmen this week and is actively courting them. Other than that, expect a LOT of Bernanke bashing after he broke the stock market yesterday.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

“This is not class warfare, this is math,” said Obama about his latest attack on the rich. And in so saying, Obama proved to us that not only is he a horrible president, but he’s bad at math too. Let’s see who really pays what in the way of taxes.

President Fail and his winged monkeys keep saying the rich need to “pay their fair share.” Chief winged monkey is the Crony Cornhusker Warren Buffett. Buffett, for those who don’t know, is a disaster profiteer, having made several billion during the financial crisis by loaning money to Goldman Sachs and General Electric (both of whom are heavily connected to the White House). Those loans, by the way, were guaranteed by we peons with TARP funds.

To thank Obama for adding to his $50 billion fortune, Buffett is now running around asking that his taxes be raised. And to back up his demand, he’s claiming that his middle class secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. Clearly, a billionaire should not be paying a lower tax rate than someone in the middle class right? Hence, we need a tax on everyone making more than $250,000 a year. . . I’ll leave you to figure out how $250,000 equates to being a billionaire.

But is what Buffett says true?

Buffett claims he only pays 17% in taxes, which he implies is typical for millionaires and billionaires. But according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center (using IRS data), millionaires and billionaires actually pay on average 29% of their income as federal taxes. By comparison, middle class earners ($50,000 - $75,000) pay on average 15%, and the lowest income earners ($20,000 to $30,000) pay on average 5.7%.

So Buffett isn’t typical. In fact, he’s underpaying the average by 43%. Which means he shouldn’t be complaining about tax rates, he should be complaining about all those great deductions he’s using to keep his taxes low. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, there are about one trillion dollars in deductions, exemptions and credits taken each year. No doubt, Warren uses a lot of those. He also probably lowers his rate by keeping much of his money overseas. Why don’t we eliminate those things first before we start attacking “the rich” (i.e. anyone earning $250,000 a year). Want to bet that Warren would squeal like a stuck pig if we did that?

And while we’re at it, what is a “fair share” anyway? 236,000 Americans made more than $1 million in income last year. As a group, they paid 20% of all federal income taxes. Is that fair? Is it fair that 46% of Americans pay NO federal income tax? Is it fair that 52% of Americans receive a check from the government? Not in my book.

Maybe the “fair” thing to do would be to pay back what each of us took from the federal government. All I’ve really gotten is military protection and crappy roads. So in my book, I’ve already more than covered my tab. I doubt Obama or Buffett can say the same.

But let’s put some perspective on this. Where did all the money go?

Obama spent it.

In 2007, the federal government took in $2.568 trillion and spent $2.728 trillion, giving us a deficit of $160 billion. In 2011, the federal government will take in $2.23 trillion and will spend $3.629 trillion, giving us a deficit of $1.4 trillion -- 8.75 times the deficit we had just four years before.

What caused this?

Social Security and Medicare went up $162 billion and $119 billion. Lost tax revenues cost another $338 billion. But that’s only $619 billion. Where did the other $621 billion come from? That’s spending.

That’s the remnants of Obama’s stimulus bill, which is still wreaking havoc in the system. Says former CBO chief Douglas Holtz-Eakin, “it was essentially a down payment on the Obama domestic agenda. . . it’s spread all through the budget.” Essentially, it raised baselines and kicked off new spending that now continues unabated. That’s Obama’s legacy. Over ten years he’ll cost us $6.2 trillion in new spending. . . double that once you factor in the automatic increases. That’s why we’re broke. And that’s why anyone who tells you we’ve started an “austerity program” is lying.

So before Obama starts whining about other people paying their fair share, maybe Obama and his friends better figure out some way to cover that tab themselves, because it's only fair that they pay that back. Maybe it’s time for a “union employee surcharge”? Maybe it’s time for a “green subsidies refund charge”? Maybe Team Obama better start washing the country's dishes.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Liberals love to think everyone else is a bigot. We’re all sexist, racist, ageist, you-name-it-ists. Only they are enlightened because they don’t partake in such evil. . . except they do. In fact, they are the biggest purveyors of it. The latest proof comes from the book about Sarah Palin.

For those who don’t know, a weirdo with a Palin obsession just wrote a book about Sarah Palin. I won’t bother giving his name or the title of the “book,” because he’s not really relevant. . . even to his mom. This “book” is a collection of obviously false rumors strung together to excite liberals. What kind of rumors you ask?

How about this. Weirdo claims Palin snorted cocaine off an oil drum. I like the oil drum, that’s a nice touch guaranteed to get liberals all excited. But the creativity of the rumor aside, this is pure hypocrisy. See, liberals don’t actually mind people doing coke. Nope. Clinton did pot plus. Obama did coke. Marion Barry did (does?) crack. And yet, they’re all happy figures within the liberal pantheon. Since this isn't any worse than conduct liberals already routinely dismiss, how can they attack Palin for doing coke? Easy, they hate Palin. She could do charity and they would attack her for it. By the way, I heard Obama snorted coke out of George Soros’s ass! True story.

Anyways, you’re here to see the liberal sexism and racism in action, not just to be entertained by the creative drug use of our first homosexual president and his Nazi-sympathizer friends. So let’s move on to the “big” allegations: did you know that Palin slept with a basketball player? Oh the horror! And her husband’s business partner! And now Mike Tyson claims she slept with him too. . . between prison stints. Oh my. How could anyone vote for her?

Ok, let’s take this in parts. First, why does it matter if she slept around? The left is all about sleeping around. They’ve been encouraging that since they all gave each other herpes at Haight and Ashbury. Bill Clinton fooled around and liberals said it was Bill being Bill. John Edwards fooled around, lied around and bribed around. Al Gore raped around. The Kennedys fooled around, raped around and killed their dates around, etc. etc. And yet these are liberal icons. In fact, a huge number of liberal males have fooled around and that apparently only adds to their charm among liberals. So how can this allegation excite liberals?

Well, liberals hold conservatives to a higher standard. They think nothing of attacking conservatives for things they do themselves -- that’s how liberals maintain the delusion that they’re better than everyone else. But even that doesn’t fully explain it. The truth is that liberals hold conservative women to an even higher standard than they hold conservatives generally. In their little world, conservative women better live like nuns or they deserve to be attacked for their behavior. Hence, the idea that a liberal man can be attacked for sleeping around is a non sequitur to them, but they happily consider it a high crime for conservative women. Why do they apply this higher standard? Because they’re sexist. What else do you call it when you selectively apply a moral standard only to women?

Moreover, the two ways liberals attack conservative women are the exact ways feminists always said it was improper to treat women. For as long as I can remember, feminists claimed that it is sexist to suggest that any woman is not "independent." They also particularly bristled at anything that suggested women are sex objects. Yet, when liberals attack conservative women, the most common lines of attack are (1) to assert that these women are mindless, stupid drones who slept their way to the top and are dependent on their husbands for their success, and (2) to attack their looks, the way they dress, and their sex lives. That's exactly what this book does, and that's sexism.

But there’s something even worse going on here. These allegations aren’t just about fooling around, they’re about fooling around with black men. Indeed, that seems to be the real “strength” of these allegations in liberal circles. Now think about that. This allegation is meant to demean her. Or, said differently, the allegation that she slept with black men is meant to demean her. If I said to you, “it is demeaning for a white woman to sleep with a black man,” you would call me racist. . . and yet, that’s what this allegation is: “Sarah Palin demeaned herself by sleeping with black men.” Nice, huh? That’s pure racism right there.

And before anybody suggests that not all liberals believe this because even the New York Times, the mouthpiece of dippy, hateful liberalism “defended” Palin against this book. Let me point something out. They didn’t say these allegations were racist or sexist and have no place in politics -- something they certainly would have screamed if a conservative had alleged this against Hillary. Nope. Instead, they criticized the book because it was sloppy, its allegations were not substantiated and this was a missed opportunity. There has been no condemnation of the nature of the attacks on Palin, there has only been an attack on weirdo’s failure to do a better job proving them.

By now, the evidence is overwhelming that liberals are sexist and racist to their cores. This is just the latest example. And if liberals were even 1% self-aware then they would see this. Of course, if they were even 1% self-aware, then they wouldn’t be liberals.

Monday, September 19, 2011

Nothing good can come from letting an author hang out at the White House. Authors are rarely part of the team. They tend to see the good AND the bad, and the bad is what most White Houses can’t tolerate. Enter Ron Suskind and his new book: “Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President.” Suskind’s book confirms so much that we already knew and Obama is none too happy about it.

Suskind interviewed 200 people, including many of Obama’s current and former aides, and Obama himself. Here are some of his most interesting conclusions:

● Obama is a second-guessing, conflicted, “sometimes wavering” leader. You don’t say? You mean like how it took him HOURS to give the Seal Team the go-ahead to do what was really the only option available to him?

● Obama “often felt . . . performance pressure,” tried to hide his “uncertainty,” and said appearing to be in command is “a heavy burden.” Yeah, that’s what happens when you’re faking.

● Former White House economic adviser Larry Summers, who gained fame as Harvard’s President for suggesting that women aren’t good at math and science, said, “There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes.”

● Former communications director Anita Dunn, who became famous for being a fan of mass murderer Mao, complained that the White House created a hostile workplace for women: “[T]his place would be in court for a hostile workplace … Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.” and "There isn't a single woman in this administration."

● Stimulus Babe Christina Romer, former head of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, said: "I felt like a piece of meat," and was often ignored at meetings.

None of this is good for Obama or his team. Indeed the entire generation of Democratic underlings has been embarrassed here. Not only are they shown to be arrogant, but they are shown to be clueless, backbiters, and sexist. So naturally, they are all denying everything in the book, pretending they have been misquoted, and attacking the author. Interestingly, they are picking on “errors” in the book, like the use of a slightly wrong title for one person, the misspelling of a name, and the use of an incorrect date. That’s pretty much an admission that the substance of the book is solid.

What’s just as interesting as the above, is that Obama also shows in the book that he really doesn’t understand why he’s such a failure. First, Obama says that what has upset people has not been his policies, it’s been his failure to communicate effectively:

● “The area in my presidency where I think my management and understanding of the presidency evolved most, and where I think we made the most mistakes, was less on the policy front and more on the communications front.”

Sure. People aren’t upset that you’ve given them 9% unemployment, that you’ve tried to destroy the health care system, that you’ve sold the government to Goldman Sachs and GE, that you’ve used our military randomly, that you’ve decided the American people are the real terrorists, that you’ve decided to ignore natural disasters in areas that didn’t vote for you, that you’ve stuck your thumb into everything Americans believe. . . no, we’re just upset you didn’t explain it to us retards well enough.

Secondly, Obama really doesn’t understand his own defects.

● “I think one of the criticisms that is absolutely legitimate about my first two years was that I was very comfortable with a technocratic approach to government.”

● “Carter, Clinton and I all have sort of the disease of being policy wonks. … I think that if you get too consumed with that you lose sight of the larger issue.”

● “But I have very much internalized the fact that my job is not legislator in chief.”

You've got to be kidding me Pile! Obama doesn’t do details. . . he’s too stupid. The first bill he ever presented to Congress was the horrific jobs bill the Democrats are running away from. Everything else was handled with Obama spouting some vague goal and then refusing to get involved. Can he really believe he was too wrapped up in the details to focus on being a leader? Maybe of his golf game, but that’s about it.

Finally, don’t expect Obama to realize why people don’t like him. Here's the official White House response to the book:

● “The truth is simple and well known: President Obama and his economic team walked into office during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and took bold, decisive action that prevented the collapse of the financial system, saving millions of jobs and putting the economy back in a place where it is creating jobs and growing again. The President made very tough decisions in the most difficult of circumstances and his team executed those decisions faithfully and tirelessly.”

Not a word of that is true.

And just to prove to you that he doesn't get it, Obama's new "$3 trillion" deficit reduction plan is to raise $1.5 trillion in taxes along with a supposed $1.5 trillion in cuts. Those cuts are $580 billion in magic cuts from unidentified savings in Medicare and $1 trillion savings from not going to war with Iraq and Afghanistan again. Nice plan, President AAAhole. In other words, there are no actual cuts. . . and no actual President.

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Things are not going well for Obama’s jobs bill. First, there was no bill, even though Obama insisted there was. Then there was a bill, but no Democrats were willing to sponsor it. In fact, they hate it. . . they fear it. Then Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert came along.

Obama’s jobs bill seemed destined for failure the moment Obama even announced it. The bill is a disaster of recycled, failed ideas which no one really thinks will do any good. The left hates it. The right hates it. Rasmussen says that only 38% of the public supports the bill. Even among Democrats desperate to do something. . . anything, this bill has been about as popular as the plague.

● Sen. Jim Webb (Va): “Terrible.”

● Sen. Mary Landrieu (La): “That offset is not going to fly, and [Obama] should know that. Maybe it’s just for his election, which I hope isn’t the case.”

● Sen. Tom Carper (Del): “I think the best jobs bill that can be passed is a comprehensive long-term deficit-reduction plan. That’s better than everything else the president is talking about combined.”

● Rep. Raul Grijalva (Az): “There is serious discomfort with potentially setting up Social Security as a fall guy.”

That’s why no Democrats have been willing to sponsor the bill.

Enter Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert. Gohmert has represented Texas since 2005. In 2008, he offered an alternative to the stimulus that would have given the country a tax holiday. In 2009, he cosponsored a bill that would have required presidential candidates to provide a birth certificate. Now he’s gone after Obama’s jobs bill, and what he’s uncovered is pretty shocking.

First, Obama’s bill would turn the unemployed into a protected class similar to ethnic minorities. Thus, if an unemployed person applies for a job and is not hired because someone who currently has a job is hired instead, that person can sue the company for discrimination. Seriously.

This is HUGE! Think about what this would do. The effect would be to (1) freeze everyone in place at their current jobs because no one would hire anyone who has a job, (2) stop all but essential hiring because of the risk of litigation, and (3) spur tons of frivolous litigation in the hopes of striking it rich or getting bought off. This would become the “Unemployed Litigants Enrichment Act.” You would literally see unemployed people bringing an avalanche of suits in the hopes of squeezing some cash out of local businesses.

This would destroy American business.

Secondly, there is a clause in this legislation which provides that any state that accepts federal money under any program will automatically waive its 11th Amendment protections (called “sovereign immunity”). That means states could then be sued for employment discrimination. Combine this with the unemployment bit above and you’ve got a recipe for the unemployed enriching themselves at the expense of the taxpayer. Even without the extra employment bit, this still would be a goldmine for employment lawyers.

These provisions are insane, which is why Obama is trying to create a sense of urgency to get the bill passed before anyone reads it. Hence, he spent the day talking about the “employment crisis” and our “national emergency.” Fortunately, this will never pass a Republican Congress. Heck, I doubt it could pass a Democrat Congress.

Finally, you should know that Gohmert has struck again. Since the Democrats have been unwilling to introduce the bill, Gohmert stole the name of Obama’s bill and introduced his own “American Jobs Act.” This is a two page bill that eliminates the corporate tax!

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

With the 10th anniversary of 9/11 behind us, it’s time to ask a question that few have been willing to debate openly: did the terrorists win on 9/11? That’s a really difficult question to answer. Let’s see what we can come up with?

If we take this question literally, then the obvious answer is NO. The goal of the terrorists was to intimidate America to the point that Americans would no longer resist Islam. Thus, Islam could conquer country after country until it dominated the world. That didn’t happen and won’t. The American spirit is too strong for terror to succeed, and any attempt to impose Islam in the United States will simply result in a whole bunch of dead and desecrated Muslims.

Unfortunately, there’s more to consider.

Despite ten years of being hunted by the most powerful military in the world, al Qaeda continues to exist. They have killed 6,500 American and Western troops, exhausted Western Europe’s military capability, and continue to pull off daily terrorist operations around the world. The Taliban control large parts of Pakistan and are prepared to return to Afghanistan the minute we leave. Fundamentalist Islamic groups will soon control Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Libya and probably Iraq, and are working on Syria and others. They control Sudan and Somalia, where they have turned pirating into a $538 million a year operation despite the collective efforts of the world’s navies. That’s a lot of success.

So did they win? No. Are they winning? Sort of.

Then there's the flip side to this question: did we lose? Again, literally, the answer is NO. America is still here and no one honestly thinks that's going to change. Indeed, if anything Islam is further from its goal today than ever because now we know what they're up to.

But again, there is more to consider. Our government has spent $1.2 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, and that doesn’t count things like TSA or lost productivity. That’s 8.5% of our national debt. By comparison, World War II cost only $2 trillion (in 1990 dollars). So we’ve spent a fortune.

At the same time, we’ve given up a lot of our freedoms so that our politicians can look like they are doing something. Note that I do not say “so we can be safe.” It’s fairly clear that airport fondlings have done nothing to keep us safer. Port security is a joke. The border is porous. Internal security is nonexistent. Essentially, we’ve been lucky that these terrorists just aren’t very bright or motivated.

Moreover, our security operations have become bureaucratic wastelands. We spent a fortune creating the Department of Homeland Security (annual budget $50 billion, funnels another $35 billion in grants), but it has achieved nothing. DHS has made no arrests that I’ve seen despite being given new powers like having the power to do warrantless wiretaps -- every arrest we’ve seen has been made by local cops, vigilant citizens or FBI stings. So what does DHS do with its time? It seizes the web domains of people who are illegally broadcasting NFL games. . . which has what to do with national security? DHS head Janet Napolitano also spends her time lying about the border being secure.

Congress has been shameful in all of this too. They’ve used the supposed security crisis to ram through all kinds of pork boondoggles and special interest legislation. They pander to us like we’re idiots, selling us fences, airport pat-downs, and anti-terror laws that are so broad anyone could be charged for anything. And they’ve put our soldiers -- our fellow Americans -- at risk because they didn’t know how else to look tough.

These are not good things. The terrorists didn’t hurt America or the American people, but our own politicians sure are giving it their best shot!

So what do we do?

First, we set new goals. Rather than fighting a “war” against something as nebulous and never-ending as “terror,” we need realistic goals such as neutralizing certain terrorist groups or replacing certain regimes. Then we come up with rational plans to achieve those goals.

Secondly, we reform our government. Strip away any function from DHS that is not actually related to security. Purge its laws of special interest goodies. Stop letting Congress force programs on the military. Consolidate all of the intelligence agencies.

And frankly, we need to do this for all agencies. Our government controls too much of our lives. It should not be micromanaging the country. We need to eliminate bailouts, czars, corporate handouts, and special interest tax carve outs. It needs to surrender its ownership of banks and car companies. It needs to stop picking economic winners and losers, and propping up things consumers don’t want. It needs to stop keeping us dependent on foreign energy and foreign labor. It needs to get out of education and out of our medical system.

Finally, we need to stop letting politicians use crises to grab power. 9/11 is not a valid reason to throw out the Constitution anymore than the financial crisis was a reason to throw out the Constitution. And we should never trade our freedoms for placebos.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

You may not know this, but there was a Republican debate last night -- between plays of the Dolphins-Patriots atrocity. Seriously, who schedules a debate during Monday Night Football? Not to mention, it's only been six days since the last one. Anyway, here are some thoughts on the debate.

● Up With (these) People: This group of candidates continues to impress. They mixed it up nicely, they made great points and they defended themselves well. It was a very spirited debate, but only rarely felt negative. There was also an awful lot of conservative philosophy discussed and explained last night. This was good for conservatism all around.

● The Hermanator: Herm is on fire! He was strong, credible, and made great points about the need to fundamentally remake our government. His advocacy of fixing Social Security by copying Chile’s model is fantastic. His 9/9/9 plan (9% income tax, 9% corporate tax, and 9% sales tax) is also great. I would absolutely choose him for VP at this point (or P).

● BullsEye of Newt: Newt was on fire too. He made excellent points all night, exposed a lot of mushy liberal-like thinking, and kept the attack focused on Obama. His best point came when the governors started arguing about who created more jobs. Newt reminded everyone that the government doesn’t create jobs. . . the private sector does.

● Insane in the Membrane: Ron Paul continues to raise legitimate issues we should be considering. . . then he veers off into crazytown. For example, last night, he raised the question of whether or not our foreign policy, in particular having troops all over the world and trying to fight ground wars against Islamic terrorism, are working. Those are valid questions that need to be asked. But then he advocated total isolationism on the theory that if we bury our heads in the sand, everyone will leave us alone. Um, no. Paul also killed himself with all but his most devoted followers by saying we brought 9/11 on ourselves and suggesting we bombed civilians in Iraq. In truth, he was making a more subtle point than that -- he was pointing out what al Qaeda itself claims as a motive -- but he picked the wrong time for a subtle discussion on a very emotional issue.

● Codename: Secret Liberal: Huntsman speaks in code. Last night he advocated "bringing in more workers" without using the words "open borders" or "immigration." He also took hypocritical cheap shots at other candidates -- like suggesting that Perry’s claim that you can’t really secure the border with a fence (a valid point) was “treasonous” ... even though Huntsman himself is for open borders.

● The Wolfman: Wolf Blitzer of CNN did a surprisingly good job moderating the debate. He kept things moving along nicely, got everyone involved, and was amazingly fair -- very few “gotcha” questions. (FYI, the left is attacking CNN for working with the Tea Party... "unethical".)

● Candidate For Sale: Perry took a pounding. He generally held up well, but not always. Paul blasted him for the growth of government and taxation in Texas and Perry had no real response. Perry also started well on the Gardasil vaccine issue, but withered under the constant (unfair) attacks. Perry also continues to give unsatisfactory evasions to the crony capitalism issue. For example, his best response to the issue was: “I raised $30 million. If you think I can be bought for $5,000, then I’m insulted.” Ok, what is your price, sir?

● Blah Blah Blah: Romney is getting better at answering the RomneyCare issue by listing significant ways it varies from ObamaCare. He’s also starting to take the gloves off, though he still seems like the most tentative guy on stage and he comes across as snide when he attacks. The main problem for Romney continues to be that he’s a technocrat and while his lips move a lot, you can’t remember anything he says.

On these issues, let me say that I actually think giving drivers licenses makes sense. Why? To protect people. These illegals will be driving whether we like it or not, and it just makes a lot of sense to have them in the system where they can be monitored, tested, taxed and forced to buy insurance. This makes it easier for law enforcement to do its job, and will protect other drivers / pedestrians -- right now, illegals run when they have an accident and that creates real problems for the people they hit.

Granting instate tuition, on the other hand, ticks me off. If you come from another state or legally come from another country, you need to pay out-of-state rates. So why should someone who is here illegally have MORE rights than someone who is here legally?

● Got Gas: Bachmann made a point in the first debate about bringing the cost of gas down to $2 per gallon. The MSM scoffed at her claim -- even though the economics is actually on her side. Regardless, there is an ingenious aspect to her point, which is worth noting. People understand the benefits of energy independence in an abstract way, but they can’t personalize it. But everyone understands $2 a gallon gas.

● Vaccinating Stupidity: There are valid reasons to criticize Perry for the vaccine issue. Specifically, his conduct raises questions of cronyism and his willingness to overstep his authority. BUT... to turn this into an broader anti-vaccine tirade as Santorum and Bachmann are doing is lunacy. To pretend that it violates people’s rights to force them to be inoculated against communicable diseases like small pox or to inoculate their children against easily-prevented debilitating diseases like polio is unconscionable idiocy.

● Vox Tea Populi: For once, the questions from the audience were really good. I guess that’s due to this being a Tea Party crowd and not a bunch of MSM-picked whiny, mindless liberals.

Finally, thanks to everyone who participated in last night's debate play by play and the “yo’ momma so liberal” contest that broke out.

Oh, one more thing. In the name of equal time, we've agreed to let HypnoBama have a few words with you:

Monday, September 12, 2011

Most of you are probably suffering from “NFL hangover,” so I’ll keep this short. . . no more than 15 pages, I promise. It turns out that our supposed brainiac President and his staff are idiots. I know this will shock you, but get this.

First, recall that our Kenyan overlord made a fool of himself with the timing of his jobs speech. He tried to steal the thunder from the Republican debate and ended up getting rolled by Boehner AND the NFL, and had to explain why such an urgent speech could wait until after he took the missus for a little luxury vacation. He ultimately attracted only 31 million viewers to this latest “most important speech of his Presidency.” That’s about 10% of the population. Apparently, the other 90% had something more important to do. Hence, this whole Winning The Future with jobs thing didn’t get off to a great start.

So, he tried to build momentum for his WTF jobs plan by spamming the media with lists of everyone who supports his plan. But not only were these the usual suspects who would have supported the plan even if it involved selling Americans to Brazilian medical clinics for spare parts, but Obama decided to send these alerts out one. . . e-mail. . . at. . . a. . . time. He sent about 50 in total before the blowback made him stop. Wrote one journalist: “The White House Press Office has vomited all over my inbox.”

Imagine that, a Kenyan spamming someone’s e-mail inbox? Unheard of.

Then, to shift blame to everyone except himself for his lack of urgency, Obama decided to demand that his jobs bill be passed RIGHT NOW!!! In fact, before the speech, he made a point of letting the press know that, for the first time in his administration, he would actually submit a bill to Congress so it could be passed immediately. Then he pounded away during and after the speech with “this bill is ready to be passed” and “pass the bill now.” Even his minions, like Valerie Jarrett have been going on MSNBC to say things like: “Congress should pass this bill right now.”

But there’s a problem. There's no bill. Team Obama hasn’t finished writing it yet. Hence, he’s an idiot.

And, this wasn’t the first time. Idiot boy has been running around the country whining that the Republican Congress hasn’t pass the free trade deals with Korean and a couple others. He even mentioned this in his jobs speech. The problem is, he has yet to submit those to Congress for approval.

This explains so much about the last couple years, doesn’t it? Our President is an idiot.

Thursday, September 8, 2011

The Official Commentarama Debate Wrap Up article is upon you. . . guaranteed to by 97% accurate. Who won? Who lost? Who didn’t show? Who had the best answer? All this and more awaits.

● Winner: The Republican Party. This was an excellent debate. It was substantive, friendly and yet challenging. No one shied away from attacking anyone else, but they weren’t nasty about it. The whole group came across as intelligent, unified and Presidential. If I knew nothing about the candidates going in, I would feel comfortable that almost any of them would make a solid conservative president.

● Loser: Obama. The mighty O took a beating. Each candidate not only blasted him on his record, but made it clear (1) he’s in over his head and (2) that anyone on the stage would be an improvement. Obama also can’t be happy the whole group proved to be strong debaters who will easily destroy our TOTUS-dependent president.

● Winner: The Governors. The three governors, Perry, Romney and Huntsman all came across as genuinely solid candidates. They seemed to have strong records, solid experience, command of the issues, and a leadership presence. It helped that MSNBC favored them. . .

● Loser: MSNBC. What a bunch of biased sh*ts! First, they favored the three governors. Secondly, Brian Williams spent the first ten minutes blasting each candidate with attack questions. Then they tried to get the candidates to attack each other using a question format like this: “Candidate Y has been called an idiot for their stupid belief in XYZ. Tell us why Candidate Y is an ass, Candidate X.” Fortunately, no one took the bait and Newt put an end to this, causing one of the best moments in the debate. This all unified the candidates. Moreover, Williams tried to attack Perry because Texas executes criminals. Williams acted like this was something to be ashamed of. But the audience gave a huge round of applause to Texas, showing how out of touch Williams is. Williams was visibly shaken by this.

● Winner: Newt. Newt was in fine form and gave answers that sounded smart and sensible. But his big score came when he blasted Brian Williams and the Politico Kid for trying to get the candidates to fight each other. He finished this by turning this into a blast at Obama. Heavy applause followed. His performance likely will allow him to keep going.

● Winner: Perry. Perry came across as very electable, strongly conservative and highly professional. He dropped all the Texasisms, which will make it hard to caricature him as Yosemite Sam, i.e. the image the Democrats hoped would scare the public. Moreover, no one really laid a glove on him. The candidates tried to hit him over the vaccine thing, but the issue seemed pretty obscure in a debate that centered almost entirely on economics. He was a little unsteady on Social Security, but not enough to hurt him.

● Loser: Perry. Perry never quite managed to separate himself enough from Romney to run away with the nomination. Thus, Romney lives to fight another day. Perry also has a problem with many of Texas’ statistics being near the bottom. The obvious answer is “it’s hard to be near the top when 1/3 of your state snuck across the border in the last ten years,” but Perry was unwilling to raise that point in his own defense.

● Winner: Romney. Romney survived by not getting destroyed, and he showed some fight and came across as a decent leader. He still seems a tad nervous on stage, but he defended himself well and the attacks on him (e.g., RomneyCare) are losing their power.

● Winner: Huntsman. Huntsman has no support, but the moderators treated him like he was tied for first. This will elevate his stature. Also, if you don’t know anything about him, he comes across as smart, competent, a solid (dull) speaker with a solid record, and a man with a good platform. The problem is, he’s lying. Much of what he says is exactly opposite of what he did as governor. For example, his answer on immigration reform sounded very solid, but as governor he gave “driving privileges” and in-state tuition to illegals. His biggest mistake was his defense of global warming, but he lumped it in with being pro-evolution, which will play well outside the religious right.

● Winner: Herman Cain. Cain came across much better than before. Last time, he kept saying, “I’ll look into it and fix it.” This time, he told us how he would fix it, and the difference was dramatic. Cain came across as a solid leader with a thoughtful plan, who could plausibly be seen as the President of the United States. That’s a big step up for him. I would not be surprised to see people give him a second look after this. Unfortunately, it’s probably still not enough to launch him into direct competition with Romney and Perry, but I think he kept himself relevant last night.

● Loser: Bachmann. Bachmann got hurt. The moderators lumped her with the fringers, which gave the appearance that she was not to be taken seriously. She was also (more than the others) the object of ridicule questions where the moderators asked the others to attack her prior statements. They also avoided asking her the key questions about jobs and economics, which made her seem detached from the discussion. Beyond the moderator bias, she suffered from the comparison to the governors who had vastly more experience to draw upon to answer questions. Thus, whereas they could talk about specific programs and achievements they caused in their states, all she could say was “I opposed XX.”

● Loser: Ron Paul. Paul gave a poor showing by Paul standards. As usual, he made some great points, but he always sounds flustered. . . like he’s crazy. Moreover, he is crazy. Indeed, he whipped out the tinfoil hat a couple times, like when he warned us that protecting the border with Mexico was a plot to keep us and our money trapped in the US, or when he blamed 9/11 on big government. Since his support is fixed, I doubt this will hurt him, but this will only cement his “crazy” reputation with the public.

● Loser: Santorum. Santorum simply doesn’t belong on this stage. He had nothing memorable to offer and seemed out of place. Whereas the others debated philosophical questions about the scope of government and economic questions related to reshaping the government’s relationship to the economy, he gave answers that sounded like shallow slogans about issues from ten years ago.

● Loser: McCotter. McCotter didn’t show up. But before you blame him, he was excluded by the organizers who claimed they only wanted candidates with a serious chance of winning the nomination. . . like Huntsman (1% support) and Santorum (1% support). Still, he lost out.

● Missed Opportunities: There were several missed opportunities. (1) On Libya, no one pointed out that the Obama Doctrine is a doctrine of unlimited war. (2) The moderators blasted GE for not paying taxes and no one mentioned that GE’s CEO is Obama’s jobs advisor.... and is shipping jobs to China. (3) On global warming, no one mentioned the “climatologists” faking their warming date, faking their equations, putting out reports they admit were false when they put them out, continuously having the revise their Holy Bible, and the fact that they’ve gone from freezing to warming to freezing.

Conclusion

All in all, this was an excellent debate. The candidates came across as strong and unified and refused to be suckers for the MSM. Obama would have looked like a drooling idiot if he had been on stage. Based just on what we heard last night, I could easily support Perry, Romney, Cain or Newt. I would be a little concerned about Bachmann, who seemed to vanish. And I would have been fine with Huntsman until he got to global warming, where he attacked the party and started my Spidey-senses tingling. Knowing what I know about these people, I am less pleased with them than I was from the debate alone. But who knows how they’ll really turn out when their butts hit the big chair?

Now we need to see what Obama says tonight. . . before the football game. (T-Rav has kindly promised to recap it for those us who would rather not watch TOTUS spew forth.)

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

The Weekly Standard did an article this weekend which listed ten myths liberals tell themselves. Some of these were right, but most really weren’t. So what are the real myths liberals tell themselves? In other words, what false ideas do liberals genuinely believe about themselves, even though those beliefs are nonsensical, contradictory, and/or contrary to all the evidence?

Myth No. 1: Liberals Are The Mainstream

Even though polls show 60% of Americans embrace conservative beliefs, twice as many Americans identify themselves as conservative than liberal (40% to 20%), and even though liberal politicians shy away from the liberal label, liberals still believe they are the mainstream in America.

Liberals believe this because they live in a bubble. They cluster in predominantly liberal cities and they choose only liberal friends. Hollywood inserts liberal messages in their films, Madison Avenue does the same with advertising, liberal publishers do the same with books, and even the nightly news is entirely liberal, while pretending to be unbiased. Thus, to a liberal, the whole world seems liberal because that’s all they see and hear.

An interesting bit of proof of how much this can distort your view comes from a Gallup poll which asked what percentage of the American population is black. Blacks, who cluster together and who hear their leaders complain about under-representation despite being overrepresented in the culture, answered that blacks are 30% of the population. . . three times the actual number.

Myth No. 2: Everyone Genuinely Thinks Like Liberals Do

An offshoot of Myth Number 1 combined with an incredible lack of self-awareness, liberals believe that everyone genuinely thinks like they do. Indeed, when someone dares to express a different view, they automatically assume that person is motivated by bias or has been bought or misled. This issue also explains why liberals believe that all criminals are victims: because they personally can't conceive of wanting to be a criminal. Thus, since they know that everyone else thinks like they do, it stands to reason (to them) that anyone who commits a crime does so against their own will, e.g. they are forced by circumstances beyond their control.

Myth No. 3: Liberals Are Knowledgeable

Liberals believe they are better educated and better informed than the public at large. And they see their enemies as stupid, anti-science, anti-knowledge hillbillies. This is of course wrong. Not only has it been shown over and over that liberals are very poorly informed, but their incredible desire to block “inconvenient truths” through political correctness and simply denying reality, and their refusal to consider knowledge that runs counter to their beliefs (see Myth No. 1 above) keep liberals happily ignorant. So why do they think they are knowledgeable? Consider the old adage that the most intelligent person is the one who knows what they don’t know, and those who are most sure are those who know the least. That describes liberals. They are willfully ignorant of what they don’t know, and that blinds them to the truth and makes their own beliefs seem that much more correct.

Myth No. 4: Liberalism Has Never Failed

Liberal policies have failed whenever they’ve been put into practice. Indeed, the evidence is indisputable that liberal policies are highly destructive. Yet, liberals insist liberalism has never failed. Why do they say this? Because liberals disavow their failures. The most common defense mechanism involves believing that liberal policies weren’t actually tried. This delusion takes two forms: (1) either the liberals in charge turned out not to be "genuine" liberals and thus perverted the policies (e.g. the Soviets or Nazis) or they failed to go far enough (e.g. Obama or the Great Society), or (2) their policies were undermined by the enemies of liberalism, e.g. corporations, Republicans, the rich, white people, religious people, capitalists, the bourgeois middle class, etc. That's how despite 70 years of nearly-uninterrupted liberalism, liberals will tell you with a straight face that liberalism has never really been given a chance anywhere. And in rare instances, where its inescapable that liberalism was tried (e.g. FDR), liberals create elaborate lies to explain how it actually worked despite the historical evidence to the contrary.

Myth No. 5: Liberals Are Independent Thinkers

Liberals are the classic example of “group think.” They believe what they are told, no matter how contradictory. And their beliefs can be changed literally overnight if their leaders tell them so. Yet, liberals consider themselves independent thinkers. This is of course ridiculous. First, consider the fact that liberals actively dismiss all evidence that doesn’t fit their beliefs. Secondly, consider that liberals are poorly informed people who only get their news from liberal propaganda sources. Third, consider that liberals have no problem ignoring reality when they are told it is no longer politically correct to believe reality. None of that is consistent with independent thinking.

Myth No. 6: Liberals Represent The Little Guy

Liberals love to believe they represent the little guy. Yet, their representatives do the bidding of Big Business. Their minimum wage kills the very jobs the little guy needs. Their unions crush small businesses and keep out outsiders (particularly minority workers). Their regulations stop all but the best connected companies. Their open borders keep wages low. Their love of taxes crushes low and middle class workers. Their protectionism hurts consumers. And all their heroes have come from the idle rich class. So much for the little guy.

Myth No. 7: Liberals Aren’t Racist/Sexist/Ageist

Liberals believe everyone else is racist, sexist, etc., but not them. Yet, big liberal cities (like LA, Boston and Washington) have the worst racial problems. Liberal companies don’t hire more minorities than conservative companies. Anyone who knows liberals knows they freely tell racist and sexist jokes. . . which they claim doesn’t make them racist, but would make conservatives racist. Their attacks on conservative blacks and women often take the vilest forms of racism/sexism and few liberals (read: none) will ever raise an objection. And there is a deeply racist underpinning to the liberal view of civil right, i.e. that minorities don’t have the ability to succeed unless white liberals hold their hands the whole way.

Myth No. 8: Liberals Aren’t Full of Hate

Liberals claim everyone else is full of hate. Yet, liberals are the ones who seethe with hate. They rant and rave and want their opponents destroyed. Liberals don’t just want apologies (something they would never feel they owed if the situation was reversed), they want people fired and driven from the public square. They demand re-education, i.e. brainwashing. Their protests turn violent. They want their opponents silenced. They openly hate the rich. . . actually anyone they consider a “have”. They hate religious people. They openly hate Jews again. They hate those who disagree with them. They hate conservatives. They tar their opponents as racists. And they want all of these people crushed by the state.

Myth No. 9: Liberals Are Better People

Liberals believe they are better people, pure and simple. In fact, it's fascinating how self-righteous liberals get about charity. They dismiss the efforts of people engaged in genuine charity, but they think their vote to give your money to someone they feel deserves it more makes them better than you. You see this in every facet of their beliefs. They see themselves as the saviors of the poor, of minorities, and of the very planet. . . all done with your money, though they take all the credit. And they look down on anyone who isn’t as “noble” as they believe they are.

Myth No. 10: Liberals Are Rational

Finally, liberals believe they are rational, but they aren’t -- they act on emotional impulses without any thought to what they are proposing. This is why their policies are often childishly stupid, e.g. “if someone doesn’t have healthcare, then we should just give it to them. Duh.” This is also why they can actively believe things that cannot be true and why they can believe contradictory things at the same time -- because they aren't thinking, they are feeling. This is also why they get so irrationally angry at anyone who disagrees with them, because they a dealing purely in emotion, where disagreement is a personal affront. This is also why they think their good intentions justify their failures. . . "sure you got hurt, but I meant well."